In addition to the points made by balsy2001, it says that nuclear cannot compete with solar etc, but the problem with that is that nuclear is proven baseline load and solar and wind can never be!
Well if you state it as a fact then maybe you could get sued for slander / libel. But if you say I think your mother is a whore that's perfectly legal because everyone is entitled to their opinion.
In the meantime, search Amazon for books from Baen or Tor, they're the only two major publishers I am aware of that have implemented a no DRM policy. Or better yet, buy direct from Baen [baenebooks.com]. Tor's supposed to have a store too [tor.com], but something seems to have gone awry there.
Actually I don't think baenebooks.com sells books directly anymore. Last time I was there they said that they were now using amazon.com as their ebook distributor.
I'm curious, does using a more difficult key protect against the WPA2 wifi issues that you are talking about? Or is it just a matter of more time to crack?
I don't know that is true, something low level like Algebra or Calculus would be fairly standard even the honors version. My honors math classes used the same texts as the normal classes, but the professors had us doing lots of proofs etc beyond what would be expected from a normal level class.
According to ZDnet Samsung is ahead of apple in the smartphone market.
Samsung’s success in the U.S. is both a blessing and a curse. It dominates the U.S. smartphone market, even outshining Apple’s iPhone. But delays, sales injunctions, and supply chain issues are hampering Samsung’s latest efforts to crank out its Galaxy S III smartphone to the market.
Market research firm
Samsung Electronics' Galaxy series has overtaken Apple's iPhone as the number-one individual smartphone sub-brand in the world. According to a report published by American market research firm Strategy Analystics in the first half of the year, Samsung sold 41-million units of its Galaxy series, which comprised 28 percent of the global smartphone market. Apple was close behind, selling 35-million units of the iPhone and taking up 24 percent of the market share. Research in Motion's Curve was the third-largest smartphone brand, but it only accounted for FOUR percent of the market. The report said Samsung and Apple are "clear leaders," since they make up over half of the global smartphone market combined.
Ok, so next year we pass a highway safety tax. Then we give a tax break to everyone driving an SUV, because if everyone is driving an SUV it will lower accident fatalities. Of course if you buy your SUV from Government Motors we'll give you a bigger tax break, because we want to stimulate the American economy.
Of course you can blow off getting insurance. You just pay the penalty (oops sorry the tax) instead of the insurance premium because it is much less. Meanwhile those of us who are responsible and pay insurance premiums now have to pay extra to cover those freeloaders who wait to buy insurance, because they can get it with pre-existing conditions. If you really think that those penalties, sorry taxes, will actually be used to help pay insurance you should take a look at the "social security lock box"
How do they shift cost to those with lower deductible plans? I too have a high deductible plan, and a health savings account to fund my deductible. The services that I receive are paid at the same rate as those with low deductibles, but I am paying more of the cost out of pocket. The reason my policy costs less than someone with a lower deductible is because the insurance company is not paying for most services, because I pay most out of pocket.
From what I've heard the systems that were damaged by Stuxnet were not on the internet. They were infected by a scientist bringing the virus in on a usb drive that he was using to work at home.
From the article you linked the defendants attorney says there is no precedent for negligence.
Massachusetts based attorney, Marvin Cable, who is representing two of the defendants in the case said, “this negligence theory is a novel one.” If Liberty Media Holdings LLC wins this case it would set a precedent that would impact not only individuals who fail to secure their wireless connections but also businesses that provide free Internet access like coffee shops and libraries.
Cable feels that because there is no precedent for negligence that Liberty Media is going to have a hard time making that case.
Just because some pr0n company thinks that is grounds to bring a suit doesn't mean it is going to stand up. And if Mr. Cable has any sense he will use the precedent set in this case to work on getting the case against his client dismissed.
I think you mean the neutralization of the ocean as the water is going from slightly basic to slightly less basic. It isn't acidification until you cross neutral.
This is a lie. The past decade was the warmest on record.
The fact that it is one of the nine warmest in recorded history, doesn't preclude that temperatures have flattened in the last decade. Meaning that there has been little to no growth in the last ten years. If there are all these positive feedback mechanisms out there then increasing CO2 should not allow for flattened temperatures. Thus no the evidence doesn't support that. None of the IPCC models can explain why temperatures aren't responding the way the models predicted. Which to a scientific mind should at least bring questions about the validity of the models if not invalidate them altogether.
The Great Climate Debate, however, is predicated from the beginning on one things. We know what the global average temperature has been like for the past N years, where N is nearly anything you like. A century. A thousand years. A hundred thousand years. A hundred million years. Four billion years.
We don’t, of course. Not even close. Thermometers have only been around in even moderately reliable form for a bit over 300 years — 250 would be a fairer number — and records of global temperatures measured with even the first, highly inaccurate devices are sparse indeed until maybe 200 years ago. Most of the records from over sixty or seventy years ago are accurate to no more than a degree or two F (a degree C), and some of them are far less accurate than that. As Anthony has explicitly demonstrated, one can confound even a digital electronic automatic recording weather station thermometer capable of at least 0.01 degree resolution by the simple act of setting it up in a stupid place, such as the southwest side of a house right above a concrete driveway where the afternoon sun turns its location into a large reflector oven. Or in the case of early sea temperatures, by virtue of measuring pails of water pulled up from over the side with crude instruments in a driving wind cooling the still wet bulb pulled out of the pail.
In truth, we have moderately accurate thermal records that aren’t really global, but are at least sample a lot of the globe’s surface exclusive of the bulk of the ocean for less than one century. We have accurate records — really accurate records — of the Earth’s surface temperatures on a truly global basis for less than forty years. We have accurate records that include for the first time a glimpse of the thermal profile, in depth, of the ocean, that is less than a decade old and counting, and is (as Willis is pointing out) still highly uncertain no matter what silly precision is being claimed by the early analysts of the data. Even the satellite data — precise as it is, global as it is — is far from free from controversy, as the instrumentation itself in the several satellites that are making the measurements do not agree on the measured temperatures terribly precisely.
In the end, nobody really knows the global average temperature of the Earth’s surface in 2011 within less than around 1K. If anybody claims to, they are full of shit. Perhaps — and a big perhaps it is — they know it more precisely than this relative to a scheme that is used to compute it from global data that is at least consistent and not crazy — but it isn’t even clear that we can define the global average temperature in a way that really makes sense and that different instruments will measure the same way. It is also absolutely incredibly unlikely that our current measurements would in any meaningful way correspond to what the instrumentation of the 18th and 19th century measured and that is turned into global average temperatures, not within more than a degree or two.
This complicates things, given that a degree or two (K) appears to be very close to the natural range of variation of the global average temperature when one does one’s best to compute it from proxy records. Things get more complicate
Like I said it is about the feedbacks -- most of the models are built with positive feedbacks but I don't think the evidence supports that. Especially since emissions have gone nowhere but up, and temperatures have been mostly flat for the last 10 years. The greenhouse effect is pretty clear, but I don't think we understand enough about the feedbacks to make the kind of catastrophic predictions that are going out.
I think what is in dispute is the magnitude and direction of the feedback. Notice the letter says catastrophic global warming. Possibly they only disagree with the catastrophic part. The CO2 that is being emitted by itself will only cause about 1C per century of warming, which isn't very catastrophic.
Zimmerman's life wasn't in danger. Nobody wants to get their head bashed against the sidewalk, but you don't kill somebody for that.
Whatever, if I am having my head beat against the pavement by someone as big as Mr Martin, and I have a gun I shoot, if I have a knife I stab him, failing that I find a rock and bash him upside the head.
it's also exciting to watch the real next step. I don't know what it is yet, will it be biotech? Social revolutions that will allow us to live within our practical limits?
Boring!! Well I guess biotech is interesting, but a world without people trying to exceed our "practical limits?" Not to long ago a 4 minute mile was considered a human limit. Going to the moon was definitely outside our "practical limits." Oh well I guess I'm just glad not everyone thinks the same way as you.
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
And what decline are they trying to hide? Why the one that shows that their tree ring data doesn't increase after 1950 and they don't know why.
If you look at the figure in the attached article in Science by Briffa and Osborn, you will note that tree-ring temperature reconstructions are flat from 1950 onward. I asked Mike Mann about this discrepancy at a meeting recently, and he said he didn't have an explanation. It sounded like it is an embarrassment to the tree ring community that their indicator does not seem to be responding to the pronounced warming of the past 50 years. Ed Cook of the Lamont Tree-Ring Lab tells me that there is some speculation that stratospheric ozone depletion may have affected the trees, in which case the pre-1950 record is OK. But alternatively, he says it is possible that the trees have exceeded the linear part of their temperature-sensitive range, and they no longer are stimulated by temperature. In this case there is trouble for the paleo record. Kieth Briffa first documented this late 20th century loss of response.
Personally, I think that the tree ring records should be able to reproduce the instrumental record, as a first test of the validity of this proxy. To me it casts doubt on the integrity of this proxy that it fails this test.
Sincerely, Jeff [Severinghaus]
Open your eyes -- go and actually read through some of their emails. Here I've set up a search of the emails for you. Open your mind a bit too while you are at it.
Except as their own email show those scientific facts are anything but. Instead they are statistically massaged to look the way they want them when the base is actually showing things very different.
I doubt it really takes all that much effort now. Originally to set up the system with where they are recording the data, it was probably pricey, but now all they need is the database and so good high end data analysis tools, so figure about $240 K (pure SWAG) a year for analyst and software. That works out to about 20K a month with one month being about your standard ad cycle, add in say $1 per person for a targeted ad campaign, if you make $10 per person that comes in and buys which is low, and you have a 10% response rate to your adds, you come out even if you can identify 20K people to send your ad to.
Obviously these numbers are all guess work, and I'm sure Target and the marketing company have done similar math but with similar results. I can't imagine a business savvy company would do these things without doing the math and determining it was worthwhile.
The decline that is trying to be hidden, is the one from the tree ring proxy data if you continue to use it post about 1950. So they stop using the tree ring proxy data and instead splice on actual temperature readings. In their sample set the tree ring proxy data would go down, which obviously doesn't match the temperature record. This implies that maybe tree ring data is not a good proxy for temperature.
There are other statistical problems with the data they use, but that is one of the most glaring. I know they have reasons why they think the tree ring data declined at that point. But their emails show that they didn't want to display it because they thought the uninformed would jump on it, and reject their entire point because of this discrepancy. To me that unwillingness to defend the issues in their data and instead attempt to just hide it illustrates basic dishonesty.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not true -- sugar tariffs are in place to protect the Hawaiian sugar cane market.
In addition to the points made by balsy2001, it says that nuclear cannot compete with solar etc, but the problem with that is that nuclear is proven baseline load and solar and wind can never be!
Well if you state it as a fact then maybe you could get sued for slander / libel. But if you say I think your mother is a whore that's perfectly legal because everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Actually I don't think baenebooks.com sells books directly anymore. Last time I was there they said that they were now using amazon.com as their ebook distributor.
But don't you think Google glasses are going to run android? I do.
I beg to differ
I'm curious, does using a more difficult key protect against the WPA2 wifi issues that you are talking about? Or is it just a matter of more time to crack?
I don't know that is true, something low level like Algebra or Calculus would be fairly standard even the honors version. My honors math classes used the same texts as the normal classes, but the professors had us doing lots of proofs etc beyond what would be expected from a normal level class.
With the current shortages or rare earth metals I think we should be working towards a fully upgradeable box, just to make them last longer.
According to ZDnet Samsung is ahead of apple in the smartphone market.
Samsung’s success in the U.S. is both a blessing and a curse. It dominates the U.S. smartphone market, even outshining Apple’s iPhone. But delays, sales injunctions, and supply chain issues are hampering Samsung’s latest efforts to crank out its Galaxy S III smartphone to the market.
Market research firm
Samsung Electronics' Galaxy series has overtaken Apple's iPhone as the number-one individual smartphone sub-brand in the world.
According to a report published by American market research firm Strategy Analystics in the first half of the year, Samsung sold 41-million units of its Galaxy series, which comprised 28 percent of the global smartphone market.
Apple was close behind, selling 35-million units of the iPhone and taking up 24 percent of the market share.
Research in Motion's Curve was the third-largest smartphone brand, but it only accounted for FOUR percent of the market.
The report said Samsung and Apple are "clear leaders," since they make up over half of the global smartphone market combined.
Ok, so next year we pass a highway safety tax. Then we give a tax break to everyone driving an SUV, because if everyone is driving an SUV it will lower accident fatalities. Of course if you buy your SUV from Government Motors we'll give you a bigger tax break, because we want to stimulate the American economy.
Of course you can blow off getting insurance. You just pay the penalty (oops sorry the tax) instead of the insurance premium because it is much less. Meanwhile those of us who are responsible and pay insurance premiums now have to pay extra to cover those freeloaders who wait to buy insurance, because they can get it with pre-existing conditions. If you really think that those penalties, sorry taxes, will actually be used to help pay insurance you should take a look at the "social security lock box"
How do they shift cost to those with lower deductible plans? I too have a high deductible plan, and a health savings account to fund my deductible. The services that I receive are paid at the same rate as those with low deductibles, but I am paying more of the cost out of pocket. The reason my policy costs less than someone with a lower deductible is because the insurance company is not paying for most services, because I pay most out of pocket.
From what I've heard the systems that were damaged by Stuxnet were not on the internet. They were infected by a scientist bringing the virus in on a usb drive that he was using to work at home.
From the article you linked the defendants attorney says there is no precedent for negligence.
Massachusetts based attorney, Marvin Cable, who is representing two of the defendants in the case said, “this negligence theory is a novel one.” If Liberty Media Holdings LLC wins this case it would set a precedent that would impact not only individuals who fail to secure their wireless connections but also businesses that provide free Internet access like coffee shops and libraries.
Cable feels that because there is no precedent for negligence that Liberty Media is going to have a hard time making that case.
Just because some pr0n company thinks that is grounds to bring a suit doesn't mean it is going to stand up. And if Mr. Cable has any sense he will use the precedent set in this case to work on getting the case against his client dismissed.
I think you mean the neutralization of the ocean as the water is going from slightly basic to slightly less basic. It isn't acidification until you cross neutral.
This is a lie. The past decade was the warmest on record.
The fact that it is one of the nine warmest in recorded history, doesn't preclude that temperatures have flattened in the last decade. Meaning that there has been little to no growth in the last ten years. If there are all these positive feedback mechanisms out there then increasing CO2 should not allow for flattened temperatures. Thus no the evidence doesn't support that. None of the IPCC models can explain why temperatures aren't responding the way the models predicted. Which to a scientific mind should at least bring questions about the validity of the models if not invalidate them altogether.
The Great Climate Debate, however, is predicated from the beginning on one things. We know what the global average temperature has been like for the past N years, where N is nearly anything you like. A century. A thousand years. A hundred thousand years. A hundred million years. Four billion years.
We don’t, of course. Not even close. Thermometers have only been around in even moderately reliable form for a bit over 300 years — 250 would be a fairer number — and records of global temperatures measured with even the first, highly inaccurate devices are sparse indeed until maybe 200 years ago. Most of the records from over sixty or seventy years ago are accurate to no more than a degree or two F (a degree C), and some of them are far less accurate than that. As Anthony has explicitly demonstrated, one can confound even a digital electronic automatic recording weather station thermometer capable of at least 0.01 degree resolution by the simple act of setting it up in a stupid place, such as the southwest side of a house right above a concrete driveway where the afternoon sun turns its location into a large reflector oven. Or in the case of early sea temperatures, by virtue of measuring pails of water pulled up from over the side with crude instruments in a driving wind cooling the still wet bulb pulled out of the pail.
In truth, we have moderately accurate thermal records that aren’t really global, but are at least sample a lot of the globe’s surface exclusive of the bulk of the ocean for less than one century. We have accurate records — really accurate records — of the Earth’s surface temperatures on a truly global basis for less than forty years. We have accurate records that include for the first time a glimpse of the thermal profile, in depth, of the ocean, that is less than a decade old and counting, and is (as Willis is pointing out) still highly uncertain no matter what silly precision is being claimed by the early analysts of the data. Even the satellite data — precise as it is, global as it is — is far from free from controversy, as the instrumentation itself in the several satellites that are making the measurements do not agree on the measured temperatures terribly precisely.
In the end, nobody really knows the global average temperature of the Earth’s surface in 2011 within less than around 1K. If anybody claims to, they are full of shit. Perhaps — and a big perhaps it is — they know it more precisely than this relative to a scheme that is used to compute it from global data that is at least consistent and not crazy — but it isn’t even clear that we can define the global average temperature in a way that really makes sense and that different instruments will measure the same way. It is also absolutely incredibly unlikely that our current measurements would in any meaningful way correspond to what the instrumentation of the 18th and 19th century measured and that is turned into global average temperatures, not within more than a degree or two.
This complicates things, given that a degree or two (K) appears to be very close to the natural range of variation of the global average temperature when one does one’s best to compute it from proxy records. Things get more complicate
Like I said it is about the feedbacks -- most of the models are built with positive feedbacks but I don't think the evidence supports that. Especially since emissions have gone nowhere but up, and temperatures have been mostly flat for the last 10 years. The greenhouse effect is pretty clear, but I don't think we understand enough about the feedbacks to make the kind of catastrophic predictions that are going out.
I think what is in dispute is the magnitude and direction of the feedback. Notice the letter says catastrophic global warming. Possibly they only disagree with the catastrophic part. The CO2 that is being emitted by itself will only cause about 1C per century of warming, which isn't very catastrophic.
Zimmerman's life wasn't in danger. Nobody wants to get their head bashed against the sidewalk, but you don't kill somebody for that.
Whatever, if I am having my head beat against the pavement by someone as big as Mr Martin, and I have a gun I shoot, if I have a knife I stab him, failing that I find a rock and bash him upside the head.
it's also exciting to watch the real next step. I don't know what it is yet, will it be biotech? Social revolutions that will allow us to live within our practical limits?
Boring!! Well I guess biotech is interesting, but a world without people trying to exceed our "practical limits?" Not to long ago a 4 minute mile was considered a human limit. Going to the moon was definitely outside our "practical limits." Oh well I guess I'm just glad not everyone thinks the same way as you.
Really?
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
And what decline are they trying to hide? Why the one that shows that their tree ring data doesn't increase after 1950 and they don't know why.
If you look at the figure in the attached article in Science by Briffa and
Osborn, you will note that tree-ring temperature reconstructions are flat
from 1950 onward. I asked Mike Mann about this discrepancy at a meeting
recently, and he said he didn't have an explanation. It sounded like it is
an embarrassment to the tree ring community that their indicator does not
seem to be responding to the pronounced warming of the past 50 years. Ed
Cook of the Lamont Tree-Ring Lab tells me that there is some speculation
that stratospheric ozone depletion may have affected the trees, in which
case the pre-1950 record is OK. But alternatively, he says it is possible
that the trees have exceeded the linear part of their temperature-sensitive
range, and they no longer are stimulated by temperature. In this case
there is trouble for the paleo record. Kieth Briffa first documented this
late 20th century loss of response.
Personally, I think that the tree ring records should be able to reproduce
the instrumental record, as a first test of the validity of this proxy. To
me it casts doubt on the integrity of this proxy that it fails this test.
Sincerely,
Jeff [Severinghaus]
Open your eyes -- go and actually read through some of their emails. Here I've set up a search of the emails for you. Open your mind a bit too while you are at it.
Except as their own email show those scientific facts are anything but. Instead they are statistically massaged to look the way they want them when the base is actually showing things very different.
I doubt it really takes all that much effort now. Originally to set up the system with where they are recording the data, it was probably pricey, but now all they need is the database and so good high end data analysis tools, so figure about $240 K (pure SWAG) a year for analyst and software. That works out to about 20K a month with one month being about your standard ad cycle, add in say $1 per person for a targeted ad campaign, if you make $10 per person that comes in and buys which is low, and you have a 10% response rate to your adds, you come out even if you can identify 20K people to send your ad to.
Obviously these numbers are all guess work, and I'm sure Target and the marketing company have done similar math but with similar results. I can't imagine a business savvy company would do these things without doing the math and determining it was worthwhile.
The decline that is trying to be hidden, is the one from the tree ring proxy data if you continue to use it post about 1950. So they stop using the tree ring proxy data and instead splice on actual temperature readings. In their sample set the tree ring proxy data would go down, which obviously doesn't match the temperature record. This implies that maybe tree ring data is not a good proxy for temperature.
There are other statistical problems with the data they use, but that is one of the most glaring. I know they have reasons why they think the tree ring data declined at that point. But their emails show that they didn't want to display it because they thought the uninformed would jump on it, and reject their entire point because of this discrepancy. To me that unwillingness to defend the issues in their data and instead attempt to just hide it illustrates basic dishonesty.